Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-039"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.1.3-039"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you used the word strong three times in your speech. The EU must be a strong force, the Community method must contain strong positions and we need strong institutions. I agree with you wholeheartedly there. But actions speak louder than words. As far as the post-Nice agenda is concerned, what you said means more Europe, not less Europe. It means more integration, not less integration. In other words, the proposals which you make will need to be specified and some will need to be reworded.
One often has the impression, when it comes to the separation of powers, that forces are at work which seek to weaken Europe. It is up to you, I think, to say what we want to do together, what we must do together in the 21st century in order to make Europe strong. Then the debate on the separation of powers will be a completely different debate from what we sometimes hear now. Strong Community institutions: this issue also needs to be specified. The issue here, as far as I am concerned, is the application of parliamentary democracy to policy on Europe. This does not just mean discussing the role and function of the national parliaments, it also means making the European Parliament even stronger. We have still not been granted a number of rights which we need when it comes to legislating, setting the budget and controlling the Commission. If we want strong Community institutions, we need to re-examine the Council and the Commission. The Commission should be a sort of government, not just the Council’s secretariat, and the Council should then be seen as a committee with the ability to take decisions. As far as the method is concerned, you said rather cryptically that the convention has advantages and disadvantages. I should like to know what the disadvantages are and for whom. I was a member of the Charter convention. I saw no disadvantages. I saw only advantages. I therefore call on you to state in your Gothenburg report that the new method will be a new convention to prepare the Intergovernmental Conference.
One last word on the timetable. I too think that 2004 is wholly inappropriate. We can wrap this up by the end of 2003. A new Treaty of Rome would then perhaps be the right basis for European elections in 2004 and a good basis for completing enlargement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples